The Fall of Western Civilization

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds great to me.

Well, I am an anti-nationalist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, pro-globalist communist. So, to me, no matter who gets elected, it will just be the same old, same old.

Well, if you can work on converting the whole world to Kaballah or some pro-altruist religion I may have to reconsider .

No, I have no desire to convert anyone to anythinig. As far as I am concerned, we are all wrong. We live in the illusion that we are right much of the time.

Well, if that's the case I'm definitely sticking to free market capitalism since its been known to handle those sorts of operating conditions.

IMO, it all depends on which collective delusion (read: language game) we want to buy into.

I prefer not to buy into a delusion. I would rather live in reality, sure it's got it's problems, but there are bigger penalties in hiding from it, in the long run. But, if people are content believing lies and following delusions, then so be it. They'll reap what they sow.

Dude, all my life I've never seen such a big fan boy for NWO oppression. Whatever, I see no point in arguing.

I am using the word delusion to refer to a social construction. I care deeply about delusions (social constructions), especially those which conform to my vision of social justice.

..... Does social justice mean little timmy gets his hands cut off for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar?

I am pro-globalist, but I support socialist globalization. The version which is out there now is dominated by transnational corporations.

Social justice, to me, is inclusion, including economic inclusion (socialism).

The fundamental problem with socialism, is the fact we are not all the same. People have emotions, and they react in a purely emotional way to conditions, supporting ideas that their blind emotions tell them that they should. People don't want to be forced to give up things they want (or think they want) to upkeep someone who is nothing like them. This just breeds resentment and ideologies like fascism.

Also the more complex and rule based society gets, the more difficult is is for an aspie to handle. We already have enough trouble paying attention to all the external social rules as it is, now we don't need anymore of them. I remember how much trouble my husband had filling out all the paper work to get “unemployment” and then not getting any anyway, or his non-understanding of “contract jobs” The system with its rules, regulations and red-tape is a huge distraction from work that he is actually finds interesting, and you know when aspies are not interested in something, they tend to do poorly at it (if they are even able to do it at all)

Socialism also tends toward more red tape for businesses, and that means more aspies end up on government welfare programs rather than starting a business or working for one that accommodates their differences. My husband tells me that work is a source of pride for him. I don't think he would want to end up having to take some kind of welfare program because our difficulties in dealing with those kinds of things. Being told “there is something wrong with you because you don't fit the mold” all the time, eventually gets to a person the more they have to deal with the society and the social order.

I think part of the problem stems form the baby-boomer generation. They were always so spoiled rotten and expected someone to “take care of them” and protect them from the bad parts of the world, because “they can't deal with it. Don't think that the gods won't punish those who want to believe in this kind of naive view of the world with some benevolent master created out of rules “taking care of us.”

IMO, what most people want is irrelevant. As I see it, the majority of people are influenced by a false consciousness (capitalism as ideology). If people are asleep in a time of crisis, they need to be woken up. If people are victimized by a false consciousness, they need to have their consciousnesses raised.



My view of socialism is not more rules but fewer of them. To me, socialism implies localism, where people in cities, towns, and neighborhoods get to decide what they want and are free of the dominance of large corporations.



Your assumptions about socialism having more bureaucratic red tape do not reflect the views of myself or of most other socialists I know.



Capitalists construct socialism as a giant welfare state. I construct it as providing what people need and taking from people what they can offer.

The welfare state is not socialism. It is protecting people from the consequences of capitalism.

And this distinction is one to be found in just about any totalitarian ideology. The other ideas are labeled pathologies and the new idea is seen as health that must be imposed upon the people. This is why I tend to side with the capitalists, they will think that you are wrong, but the only problem they have with socialistic people is if they do try to create more rules.


And I really don't think that these ideas are well conceived or fully fleshed out in scope of their counter-arguments. Capitalism implies even greater localism than that, where people get to decide what they want rather than cities, towns, or neighborhoods. Moving up this level is to impose greater social restrictions upon society. Not only that, but corporate dominance hardly seems as great a danger as one of a higher government. Corporations are merely a mechanism to create goods and services, and every society will end up developing something similar to them, even if they do alter the structure somewhat.


And are most socialists individuals with any background in the phenomenon they are trying to get control over?? Every organization has bureaucratic red tape, and socialism is often based upon the ideal of stability and control over distribution, both of which will tend to push us closer towards bureaucratic red tape as the only evil to fight red tape happens to be dynamism, which is a hard and painful thing to force on people.


Except that the giant welfare state is a better fitting construction as it includes ideas such as control, incentives, design and organization, etc. We can argue on whether the term is biased or not, but it is a more descriptive term.

No, it isn't. The welfare state is merely a political game as it is not designed well to do anything at all in most places and perhaps cannot be designed perfectly.

The notion of "false consciousness" is elitist BS that can can be used to justify "Nanny State" Paternalism and Totalitarianism. I don't want a bunch of Marxist intellectuals telling me that I need to be "re-educated" because I like and want things that are not "ideologically correct." That BS is one of the reasons why Karl Popper rightly dismissed Marxism as claptrap, any criticism is rationalized away as "false consciousness" and "bourgeois ideology."

I consider myself a variety of socialist, but I find this dogmatic adherence to Marxist nonsense by most socialists is ridiculous.